Should citizens who do not vote be charged with a fine?

Asked by: sArThAk882
  • Non voters should be charged

    This is because we the young ones choose the govt. For our country and non voters siting at one place should not judge for the right party to come up but should take efforts to vote and utilize the right given by the govt. In spite of enjoying the holiday given on that day.

  • It helps the political parties a lot

    The political parties need somebody to vote and appeal for them to be in the Parliament. If there is no fine, less people will vote and the political parties will not get the support they needed. Then it would be very hard to judge who is the most popular and the most suitable to lead the country.

  • Rights AND Duties

    As a member of a democracy (republic - whatever you wanna call it), I have a duty to engage in voting just like jury duty. Without such, we could have an impotent political system beholden to whoever has the most money and actually votes. Australia - a very familiar western democracy - does this.

  • Fair representation of the citizens desires

    A democratic country is based on a simple principle: the country is run by the people. Therefore when you have a low rate of votes ( less than 50 ) the outcome of this voting will not represent the vast majority citizens' desire of who should run the country in their best interests but rather it will be run by somebody who represents the desires of the minority of the citizens of that country which obvioulsy doesn't represent the majority desire. Of course for that they should have voted. The fine will do nothing more than help the democracy work better by being an incentive for the citizens to vote.

    Somebody argued there will be those in the incapacity to vote. Imagine that there will also be those who can but won't vote therefore the money raised from the collection of the fines will be used to create infrastructure so that everyone can vote.

    Another argued for the right to vote . Not a duty. Well this is just because there are countries who have a good representation of the citizens desires ( a percentage over 50 of people who vote) . When you live in a country where constantly at every election the rate is very low you encounter the problem of the wrong men and women in charge of the country taking bad decision that quite often end up with the people who didn't vote in the street protesting ( of course there will also be the small number of people who voted against those bad people ).

  • People should not be fined if they doesn't vote

    As per the constitution it is their wish to vote. The leader whom they like will be voted but if they don't​ like any of the leaders who are participating in the election then they will not vote to anyone so ,people should not be fined if they don't vote fot leaders.

  • Tyranny at its finest.

    Saying that if a person doesn't express their opinion they will be punished is a violation of the Bill of Rights. What if the person doesn't like ANYBODY on the ballot? What happens then? Will the person be forced to go out and vote for someone they don't want in a position of power?

    Tyranny at its worst. I don't think even Nazi Germany got THAT bad.

  • People should not be fined for not voting

    People shouldn't be fined because they just shouldn't. That is stupid and it will just make people vote randomly or based on who their friends and family voted. People should be voting based on who they think will actually benefit the U. S. More and other facts not by a random choice.

  • Some citizens are not able to vote or just don't want to.

    Some perfectly legal citizens are not allowed to vote. For instance, both of my parents are Canadians who moved to the US. They have greencards and everything but they still cannot vote because they are Canadians. I on the other hand, can vote because I am the first American in the family and will have dual citizenship (when I am allowed to get it (I am only 12)). This means that some citizens would have to pay the exact same government that does not allow them to vote money for not voting. Also, often both sides are not favorable. The last election was a prime example of that and many people did not want to vote because they did not like either side. People should also not be fined for not having an opinion or wanting to share an opinion.

  • No for fairness.

    No because lots of people would just check off a random box which creates unfairness between the electives. It is also scientifically proved that humans tend to check the first box on a list, so that would most likely give the first person the edge, but if they didn't fine the people that actually care who wins would create a fair vote

  • Vote or be fined nonsense

    You have the right to vote, not a duty to do so. New York gets enough money from it's residents already. It's going to be another chaotic, unnecessary financial mess. There too many uniformed and uninterested citizens who would blindly cast a vote. New York needs too reprioritize it's spending to benefit the American citizens that have lived here and are in need. Instead of trying to get MORE money from them.

  • G g v

    Fndjdjcn fbc v vf f f f s g f f d r s d r f d f g f f g g g g g g g g g g g g jfdvfj fghffjb fbfbb fbfn fbfj b h h d h f c g v v v v

  • G g v

    Fndjdjcn fbc v vf f f f s g f f d r s d r f d f g f f g g g g g g g g g g g g jfdvfj fghffjb fbfbb fbfn fbfj b h h d h f c g v v v v

  • Expect to answer question

    If you force a fine on those who don't choice to vote since not voting is a right as well. Then that person might make a vote in the wrong terms. Like vote for someone because they hate the other because of their sex, race or whatever. It be too quick and haste.

    You want your voters to make smart educated votes.

  • Why force the inclusion of ignorant opinions?

    This would cause indifferent people who already don't care about any of the candidates to become involved. This would likely result in favor of candidates with good looks, charm, and branding who might not have sound political agendas. The people who care about the elections and know more about politics in general have more value. The votes of intellectual voters would be diluted by the dumb and the indifferent.

  • Too many problems with this

    Even if ideally people have a duty to vote to determine whether a policy is the right policy or not it is not sufficient to ask whether people have a moral duty. What will the practical consequences be? In Australia they have the problem of the "donkey vote", that's people who don't care who wins and so they vote for the first person.

    Ideally people have the duty to vote but even more importantly the duty to take the time and inform themselves. People who don't take the time and inform themselves are casting their votes for campaign advertisements and the media. People who don't even care who wins from that would just tick a random box, most likely the first one. This skews the results. Even if a majority of the people who actually care want candidate A candidate B may win if his name is first on the ballot.

    To try to enforce that people not only vote but are informed would require a police state to force voters to educational centers, and then the educational centers would be corrupted by politics and used to reelect the same people and then we'd have a dictatorship. Even more problematic is that to enforce that they even care we'd have to develop pharmaceuticals to stimulate the amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortex during these sessions, and that's mind control and would also be a very blunt and inconsistent instrument, making some people care and others would just become more angry about being forced to be 'educated'.

    Since we can't enforce that people be informed or even care without defeating the purpose then we shouldn't enforce that people vote, since people who don't care or who are uninformed voting is worse than them just not voting at all.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.